This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bizarre diffThis diff is rather bizarre. It shows one editor editing another editor's userpage(!), and then adding portions of a quote that reveal a misunderstanding of NPOV. Odd...
That is quite a quote. Fyslee ( talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fyslee, sorry I don't mean to be engaging in whitewashing (is that a formal term? is there a guideline on this?) it just seemed that some of the language on the page was needlessly negative. I'd like to do some more work on the article, so I'll definitely be careful about this. Another question, what is "IOW duplication"? I'm not familiar with that policy, so if you could point me to a page about that I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Ten Thousand Bullets ( talk) 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Alston BLP vioDid you read the reference? It is an allegation by an non-notable individual in an opinion piece. It hardly justifies the inclusion of text calling Alston 'the world's biggest luddite'. Not even front page opinion pieces in WP:RS newspapers get a guernsey in AusPol articles, I don't see why this text should remain. -- Surturz ( talk) 01:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Reckless drivingThanks for the info about the reckless driving uproar; I wasn't aware of that part of chiro history. Eubulides ( talk) 08:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ApologyI misunderstood a comment of yours at User_talk:Shell_Kinney and posted a narky comment aimed at you. I reverted it a few minutes later when I realised my stupidity. Sorry for not assuming good faith. -- Surturz ( talk) 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Aspartame controversyI see you've been working on Aspartame controversy. I thought I'd take a stab at the article, but I don't think I have the patience to deal with problems of this extent. I'll stick with it for awhile and see what happens. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, your list is looking good. I am not real big on lists here but I think this might be helpful for locating information for references. There are lists for CAM so this is kind of balancing things out. Anyways, it is looking good. I also want to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season. Our editing hasn't crossed paths for quite some time so I hope all is well. Happy holidays, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings![]() The Risberg Cohort StudyIn 1992, Risberg and colleagues surveyed close to 1,000 Norwegian cancer patients about alternative treatments for cancer. Their initial purpose was to determine the prevalence and determinants of alternative medicine use.29 The investigators later realized that it would be possible to link their data to the Norwegian Statistical Registry to obtain information on survival. They found that alternative medicine use was associated with poorer survival; 79% of alternative medicine users died during follow-up compared with 65% of nonusers. This analysis was confounded by the poorer clinical status of users at the time of the survey. As might be expected, a patient with a treatable early cancer might be less likely to turn to an alternative cure than a patient with advanced disease and few remaining conventional treatment options. A multivariable Cox regression was used to control for baseline differences in stage, performance status, time since diagnosis, and other prognostic variables. There was a trend for alternative medicine users to have shorter survival (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% CI, 0.99–1.70; P = 0.056), a result that was robust to various sensitivity analyses. The authors hypothesized that shorter survival might be explained by "patients’ correct perception of the gravity of their disease." Whatever the explanation, the study certainly finds no evidence that use of alternative medicine improves survival.30 http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110 LameScience"Dirty Harry"Apologist flailing about: cheers, Jim Butler ( t) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.... section on malaria does not read: Malaria (meaning bad air) is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. It is widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, including parts of the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Each year, there are approximately 515 million cases of malaria... But rather: Malaria is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. It is widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, including parts of the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Each year, there are approximately 515 million cases of malaria... Why provide rough translation of neologism coined in the late 20th century? Why insist on n00b's casual (and silly) addition being sacrosanct and then threatening to 'report'? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.101.202 ( talk) 09:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thought you'd want to know I've asked for a finding related to you to be amended. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Now located here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Motion Keating letterAn excellent letter by Keating starts here, about chiropractic philosophy and how it hampers the profession. -- Fyslee ( talk) 07:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Happy New Year! I noticed that you created this article. What to do you think should be done with it? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If you have time...Hi Fyslee, if you have time would you take a look at Reiki [2]? The vandals have hit it pretty hard lately and I don't know enough about this to fix the article. I am bringing it to your attention because I know you do ocassionally edit there. If you don't have time no problem, I am sure someone who knows the article can fix it back up. I am just not the right editor to do it. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee". For the Arbitration Committee,
HelloSorry for the revert, you were just in the line of fire! Duck! I know what you meant and you know what I mean. Dematt
Categorization, characterizationHi Fyslee -- regarding this edit -- no matter what introductory prose in subsections say, putting any topic in "List of Pseudosciences..." amounts to characterization per WP:PSCI. (Therefore, "questionable sciences" shouldn't go in.) This is true for any controversial category. "List of Terrorists" shouldn't contain a waffly section; it should either omit grey-area cases or have a different list title. That's pretty straightforward logic. Wasn't that why you argued for a change in the list's name to something more qualified, like "List of alleged pseudosciences" or something like that, so that "grey" area topics could be included along with brief explanations? regards, Backin72 ( n.b.) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCEA request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 ( n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Nice quote from that clarificationFrom the Statement by Eldereft ( diff)
Yes, I still think a change of title would significantly reduce the edit warring by dealing with the single most important fundamental defect with the article, the title. It needs to be changed to something neutral like List of purported pseudosciences, or something like that. Some relevant diffs: [3] [4] -- Fyslee ( talk) 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Parsing of WP:PSCII have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced and tweaked: There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what." They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe=alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the fringe=alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Wikipedia (by using the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:
The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:
I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe=alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Wikipedia categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles. Changing the title of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific or List of subjects asserted to be pseudoscientific, or better yet, List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS. -- Fyslee ( talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PingYou have mail of a personal nature from me. Take your time, thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC) PseudotitlesI offer my compliments on your clarity and consistency in the discussion of prospective titles for the list of pseudosciences and pseudo-pseudosciences, or whatever we'll end up calling it. (Hey, maybe I should propose that one, I kind of like it!) It's been good to have your quiet voice of sanity amidst the high-pitched tones. hgilbert ( talk) 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Aspartame controversyFyslee, thank you for this edit and in particular for the following edit here. IMO, a very sensible application of WP:RS and WP:PSTS. At absolute most the assertions you removed should have been made explicitly clear to be minority or fringe views. Good catch. ... Kenosis ( talk) 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Mucoid plaque![]() Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Delivered at 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable) InuitAn Inuk is the the singular but Inuit is the plural version. Although I did notice that in other languages, French Wikipedia for example. I suspect that it has to do with the fact that the words are not English to start with. In the two examples you gave, Caucasian and Asian, are probably English words so the adding of an s for the plural words. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Less heat and more light please. If we just focus on the sources, it will be easier to reach agreement. I suspect that this editor just didn't understand what I'd said, so could you refactor some of your speculations? Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Damn it, how did I manage to miss the edit where he changed a section heading from "Philosophy" to "Dogmatism"? -- TS 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
FluoridationThanks for spotting that stray "of". I removed it. The wording is still awkward, but at least it's grammatical now. Eubulides ( talk) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Anon user
Hi. An anon user asked for you to be warned for calling him a "sucker". You can take this as the warning. Deb ( talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) TruzziWorks for me - on further reflection, scientific skepticism is not really a good further information link there, good job. I did wikilink it in the section, though; the article is already linked in the preceding section, but I think overlinking is ok with that. And sorry about the thinko in typing links instead of redirects, that was my bad. - Eldereft ( cont.) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) My talk pagePlease refrain from posting on my talk page. If you have a problem please take it up with a third party administrator. Fothergill Volkensniff IV ( talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Sock puppet investigationWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Landed_little_marsdon I don't care too much about "civility", especially when it is targeted against myself, but this comment of yours is quite extraordinary. It starts with a valid argument, and I don't understand why you didn't stop after that. I don't see why you had to fill up your post with invalid arguments, cheap rhetorics and even a meatpuppetry accusation that insinuates that a professional mathematician in Europe acts as a proxy for an Indian quack. (To cover for the unlikely case that you actually believed what you wrote, I am sending you a relevant diff that I am not free to post here because it was partially oversighted.) I also appreciate the underhanded way in which your comment calls me insane, and I hereby return the compliment – to your comment, not yourself, who I suppose were simply a bit absent-minded when you wrote it. However, I agree with the last sentence of your comment ("This is simply disruptive, and it needs to stop."), with the obvious referent being the paragraph in which it appears. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Last informal warningThis is my last attempt to (in your words) "put out the fire". You have now repeated the worst of your unfounded insults:
This kind of well-poisoning is completely unacceptable, whether you do it knowingly or out of extreme negligence. You dig up an old compromise proposal of mine that you agree with sufficiently that you later propose it yourself for consideration. ("That wording of yours sounds pretty good to me, and it could be considered along with the suggestion below as good wordings." [11]). And you continue to accuse me of stonewalling in exactly the same matter? And don't claim that the passage of yours that I cited above was not intended to refer to me. I don't believe for a second that you just put it in in an attempt to "put out the fire". What I expect from you now is that you put up or shut up. You have made enough offensive insinuations: (1) that I am "carrying on the battle fought by" a certain user; (2) that my approach is not collaborative ("Please adopt a more collaborative attitude toward this issue, as you have done in the past."); (3) that I no longer stand by my compromise proposal ("I continue to appeal to you to reconsider one of your previous compromises"); (4) that I hold [a] fringe belief[s] such as e.g. belief in efficacy (in the usual sense that is testable with placebo-controlled studies) of homeopathy, or that my admitted belief in the existence of the placebo effect is a fringe belief ("You are welcome to hold fringe ideas as personal beliefs[...]"); (5) that I am advocating [a] fringe belief[s] ("but not allowed to advocate fringe beliefs at Wikipedia."). For each of them I expect substantiating diffs or an unambiguous retraction. In case you are still puzzled, look at this and this; this should help you to understand my real position. Normally you should be acquainted with it already, since you replied to my post in the second diff, and in the ensuing discussion it became clear that you are a strong believer in the minority position that the placebo effect is a mere illusion. I must warn you that your bullying and well-poisoning clearly falls under "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to [...] any expected standards of behavior [...]", and if you do not reply to my satisfaction I will ask an uninvolved admin for help. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
pleaseThis is a personal attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Puppetry.2C_Protection_.26_POV_tags Please apologize. You have no excuse. I asked you 2 specific questions (using reliable sources) and instead of trying to give a rational answer you are attacking me personally. This is disruptive; If you don’t apologize I will have to follow the right venue - AVI or whatever seems appropriate.-- JeanandJane ( talk) 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Andrew WakefieldI was able to find substantiation for at least part of a sentence that was awaiting citation at Andrew Wakefield but my medical knowledge is not enough to be sure whether the simple terms used in the Wakefield article match up with the medical terms used in the British Medical Journal. Could you check my change and see what you think? -- 65.78.13.238 ( talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Odd postDid you really intend to place this edit on that user's talkpage? LeadSongDog ( talk) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hans AdlerFyslee, I presume you don't think User:Hans Adler is User:Dr.Jhingaadey - Hans Alder is a long-standing editor who, although I often don't agree with him, behaves well, and is willing to discuss his points. I presume you were trying to say that some issues were raised by him and Jhingaadey, and you disagree with those issues, but I've reviewed your phrasing, and the phrasing is ambiguous enough that it could be read as an accusation. I think you should apologise to Hans, briefly and politely clarify your point, and this should bring the situation to rest. The Homeopathy article has calmed down into a very pleasant editing environment, I'd like to de-escalate this situation, and move on with the copy-edits that should take this to FA. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the following is helpful:
The statement of meatpuppetry really isn't helpful, nor is the extremely combative tone of the "murderers" part. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009From the editor —
A new leaf
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 06:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Your rollback requestHello Fyslee, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week. Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC) What the dealHello Fyslee, I saw you made a change to the format of Golden Plates. I reverted your change because it created unnecessary white space and made the format look worse. You then reverted by saying that it is "standard format" and that no more white space was created than other articles. Is there a required format for articles? If so, please direct me to that specific new rule/policy. If not, is there a new rule that put you in charge? Why would you revert when it is obvious another editor disagrees with your edit? I could your assistance in helping me understand your position or should we just revert each other? -- Storm Rider 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Fyslee, I came across this on FTN. I have a suggestion. Instead of leaving the last word to the last reverter, if you can stomach it, maybe set up a quick style preference !vote in RfC style on the talk page, and then leave it to the gods? I'm pretty sure a nonstandard version is going to get shot down by a majority of editors. I"m also pretty sure that this will come up again without a record of consensus since nonstandard layouts tend to get standardized by other editors (for good reason). Phil153 ( talk) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
New article that requires a lot of loving. I did a lot of the much needed formatting, grammatical, and punctuational clean-up as well as some tagging. That said, it certainly could use some professional help. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC) -- MifterBot I ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. ( talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Are you kidding me???This change just cracked me up. In other words, even the homeopathic potion producers know there's nothing in solution? It cannot have any effect. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty disappointed in the fraud in the dietary supplement industry as well, although it's probably a bit too totalitarian to outright ban the things. Perhaps better disclosure labels. On the other hand, at least there's no adverse effects with homeopathic remedies-- and the placebo response likely helps people get better. Recent studies show that the effects of antidepressants, which can cause severe adverse effects, might be due to publication bias [13] and placebo [14]. Many depressed people would have improved with placebo, but instead had to take the risk of permanent sexual side-effects, weight gain, apathy, suicide ect. People's trust in the experts can lead to them being abused -- my coworker's 13-year old son had a tantrum and threw a pencil at a fellow student. The child psychologist immediately put him on risperidone, which among other alarming things (weight gain, anxiety, sexual dysfunction) could cause him to lactate. Luckily, herbs and natural substances with less side-effects and similar efficacy are beginning to be recognized. SAM-e and 5-HTP have been recognized as likely effective for depression for at least forty years -- and have little proven adverse effects -- yet because they can't be patented, they haven't been well-researched. Other examples include Harpagophytum, which appears to be equivalent to Vioxx with much fewer adverse effects, Veregen, the recently FDA-approved green tea extract for genital warts which is about as effective as Aldara without the serious adverse effects and a lower recurrence, and kava kava, which is effective for anxiety without strong evidence of negative effects in doses of the root-derived substance. II | ( t - c) 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
GenderI note on another talk page you're suddenly a "she" - when did the (un?)happy event occur? Or is that genderfusion on the part of the poster? (please note the innocently wagging tail of the puppy... no snickering here, nosir!) KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi I am 2 days old here and already in trouble :)
Sorry, I was just in the middle of an edit when you did your revert. I am trying to come to a consensus but the other editors do not seem familiar with the material (GAO87) and they seem to believe I am 'making it up'. Your help is greatly appreciated, but please see the discussion page and aid me in understanding just what the problem is, Thank you. Unomi ( talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Take CarePlease don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
SA & Tom ButlerDon't worry Fyslee. Tom's anti-science POV can't rely upon RS, NPOV, WEIGHT, or a host of other Wikipedia guidelines, so if Tom thinks that abusing SA, then pushing him out of the project, is going to allow the altmed types to write whatever they want, well, it ain't going to happen. I know SA's style is unhelpful at times, but he really stands up to these anti-science types. If they think they've "won", well, they really believe in magic. SA is one of the smarter editors around here. I don't care about SA's style one way or another (I'm close to it at times), because I don't think civility trumps NPOV under any condition. Don't waste your typing on Tom. He thinks he's right. Oh well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ToneHey, what's with the unpleasant tone? "Vandalizing and whitewashing" is a little extreme considering all I did was to move information about the budget and charter from the criticism section to a section on general organizational information - where it's probably more appropriate, anyway. Nothing was deleted. hgilbert ( talk) 08:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hgilbert, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what went wrong, but I do apologize for that edit summary. Our previous history made me jump to a conclusion and I reacted too quickly and sharply. I am very sorry for that. (BTW Hans, this is about the last two of my edits, not the previous one.) But....looking at my first one, it inadvertently did create a duplicate. I just hadn't noticed that. My main concern was that material from a critical source was having part of the criticism moved to other sections, leaving it talking about the charter, but the charter part was now elsewhere, and also the detailed mention of certain trials was part of the criticism, but was now being moved elsewhere as well, all of it being sourced from the same ref. Whatever happened, I did make a mistake. BTW, there happens to be another duplication that was untouched. I'll remove it. If you still wish to fix that section, please propose your edits on the talk page and we can discuss them. I am perfectly willing to see improvemnts to the section, as long as the "teeth" and documentation of the criticism aren't "pulled". We can certainly work together on this one. I apparently didn't fully understand your original edits and misjudged your intent. My apologies again. -- Fyslee ( talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Thought you'd want to know I've asked for a finding related to you to be amended. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Now located here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Motion The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee". For the Arbitration Committee,
Parsing of WP:PSCII have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced and tweaked: There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what." They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe=alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the fringe=alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Wikipedia (by using the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:
The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:
I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe=alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Wikipedia categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles. Changing the title of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific or List of subjects asserted to be pseudoscientific, or better yet, List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS. -- Fyslee ( talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Mysterious huffings in Mindinao.Whoops, I belatedly noticed your request to respond here. Alas, I have only general ideas to offer. NickyMcLean ( talk) 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC) "could coverage"?See [19] -- 'good coverage' perhaps? Dougweller ( talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacksAt WP:ANI#Martinphi requesting unblock there are three posts in which you attack Unomi based on an unfounded belief that he is a sockpuppet or returning user. As I noted elsewhere, with only a little research you can easily find out which country Unomi is editing from. You can also google his user name to find a lot of additional information about him, some of it related to his country of residence. The SPI case (apparently Unomi didn't know it was a RfCU since the term seems to be officially out of use since the merge of all SPIs to a single page) ends with "Checkuser evidence shows no IP-relationship nor any geographic relationship nor any other checkusery sort of evidence between the three candidates". I have rarely if ever seen such a strong formulation for a negative CU result. It led to the following unblock comment: "Checkuser evidence appears to indicate this sockpuppet ID was a mistake. Undoing my own block." I have analysed at Talk:Aspartame controversy#Unomi deserves an apology how several editors, most notably one who was blocked for edit warring two weeks ago and hasn't logged in after the block expired, have shown typical mobbing behaviour in response to very little provocation and the flimsiest evidence. I have had ZERO responses pointing out any inaccuracy in my analysis or even just disagreeing with it. The short version: Unomi tried to fix the misrepresentation of a source, didn't go about it with the care necessary at a controversial article, and got no constructive feedback. OM told him "Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CIVIL for good measure. Oh, and you're approaching tendentious editing." Unomi did follow at least the last of these links, and at WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors found a reference to an obscure old Arbcom case. OM replied: "Sniff. Sniff. Damn someone forgot to wash some socks out." From that point on, OM and some others shut down communication with Unomi almost completely, instead repeating the baseless sockpuppet accusations as a mantra. You should be more careful before attacking others in public. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL - Hans has been busy on talkpages lately :-) Shot info ( talk) 05:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Unkind wordsPlease remove your personal attack on me. Address the substance of my argument rather than attacking me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
For continued service
Huzzah for edits based entirely on appropriate sourcing! - Eldereft ( cont.) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Questions for UnomiUnomi, you have made a number of statements at the NPOV noticeboard that puzzle me. What are you talking about? Your heading there and the content that followed don't seem to hang together. You immediately turned it into an attack on me, QW, and Barrett. Here are some of the things you wrote that I'd like you to explain: 1. You wrote: "@Fyslee: I am going to ask you one last time to cease and desist with using strawman tactics and attributing statements or intents to me which you do not back up with diffs. I have never sought inclusion of Scientology sources." (BTW, your use of @ isn't standard indentation here and is rather irritating. Very few use it.)
2. You wrote: "The source which you seem to hold in such high regard was held in such low esteem by California Superior Court Judge Hon. Haley J. Fromholz that he saw fit to write..."
3. You wrote: "...but you must realize then that in-text attribution of the opinions must be..."
4. You wrote: "You consistently indicated your unwillingness to abide by wikipedia guidelines and policy..."
5. You wrote: "...if you continue to make unfounded and slanderous accusations we will very quickly see ourselves at yet another venue for dispute resolution."
In spite of (and maybe because of ;-) the fact that I am quite knowledgeable about the ideas of many forms of alternative medicine, most notably chiropractic, having made it a study for many decades, I am a very strongly pro-science, mainstream, editor who adheres to Wikipedia policies as best I can. I'm not perfect, but no one can question my loyalty to Wikipedia's policies and NPOV. I have made mistakes, especially in the beginning, but I have a positive learning curve. As examples of my support of NPOV you will find that I am one who supports and protects the inclusion of some of the worst fringe nonsense imaginable here. Why? Because if it is a notable fringe subject, then NPOV requires that it be presented here, and I support that. In the other direction, I support the inclusion of legitimate and well-sourced criticisms of mainstream subjects. I'm not a deletionist or whitewasher. Please explain your accusations and refer to each item by number. Do it below. -- Fyslee ( talk) 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Response to FysleeHi Fyslee and thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the issues that you have raised. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ReplyThank you so much for being upfront and explaining yourself. To some degree your efforts above do shed some light on your comments. I wasn't expecting things outside the noticeboard to be part of the issue, since my comment stood alone there, and I thought you were overreacting to it. Anyway, there is much confusion and I'm sorry about needlessly hurting your feelings. I'm quite blunt in my expressions at times, and that can hurt. That is not my intention. I'm not really thinking about the reception while I'm writing criticisms. Maybe I should! Rather than answer each and every point, I do notice a few themes that may need clarifying. My comments may not be totally satisfactory, but at least they'll explain where I'm coming from.
I doubt that you'll be happy with all I've written, but those are my honest opinions. Even though we disagree, I hope that we can learn to disagree agreeably. -- Fyslee ( talk) 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling about a sockpuppetHi. I think I need some help. I recently opened a discussion on WP:ANI regarding some very vitriolic responses to a fairly straightforward AfD discussion [20]. During the process, I was able to read about 1000 words worth of direct conversational speech by the admin who was attacking me User:Uncle G, as well as his policy arguments. Out of nowhere, a new user jumped in with the pared down version of the exact argument the admin (Uncle G) had used with me on the AfD discussion, even though he hadn't voted on it. Upon viewing User:Unomi, I came across your discussions with him. I don't know if I'm being paranoid or not, but several phrases, including the same weird "staw man" analogy were used by both. The sentence construction is almost identical. As is an almost uncanny resemblance in their attitude and word choice. I could give you more examples, but you did a lot of work on this, and are probably more qualified to let me know if I should pursue this or not. I hate causing conflict like this, but I have a really bad feeling in the pit of my stomach about this.-- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 18:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Because you're not looking for itThis: "The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community." .... is all that is required in the flood geology article. No preaching. No bad quotes. No misinformation. Science is merely a method of understanding the universe as it is, it doesn't require protection by forcefully taking down its enemies. -- KP Botany ( talk) 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
RenameI've renamed you but be advised you have so many edits that it will take a few days to process them all, most likely. If there are any problems in this regard, you'll need to contact a developer. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You've Got PostI sent you an email. Regards, Skinwalker ( talk) 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Dispute resolution: Barrett's status as "medical expert"![]()
This is about a dispute regarding what I consider to be a likely dubious claim made by Stmrlbs
Stmrlbs makes the claim as part of his argumentation for why an unsourced (or at least improperly sourced) piece of information about Barrett's lack of board certification should be included in the Barrett article. THAT is not the subject of discussion here. It is Stmrlbs's claim about Barrett claiming to be a "medical expert" that I question. I'm bringing the discussion here since the dispute quickly became a distraction and circular discussion, and thus a violation of WP:TALK. I put a hat on it, which is standard practice in such situations, something that Stmrlbs apparently doesn't realize and has reverted twice, rather than accepting what more experienced editors do in such situations. Anyone can do it, including uninvolved editors. There is no firm rule about it. If there was hope for the matter being resolved without disruption on that talk page, it would be OK to remove the hat, but that isn't the case. In response to the following comment, I'm going to seek to get to the bottom of this matter:
Stmrlbs, our comments are still there. A "hat" doesnt't remove them. It just helps to ensure that our personal dispute doesn't continue to disrupt the discussion. It veered off-topic, and would have been more appropriate as a separate thread, but since it became more personal and very circular, it doesn't belong on that page. Other editors might have removed the whole thing as a TALK violation, but I didn't do that. I'm not sure why we're having the impasse in our communication, but maybe your first language isn't English? Well, here goes... you ask me to tell you what I "think this situation is". Fair enough. The situation is that you made a possibly dubious claim as part of your argumentation. That claim may be fallacious. If you were to build your argumentation on a fallacious idea, then the conclusions that followed it would be fallacious as well, and we'd end up not really solving the matter about whether or not to include the board certification matter. That's why my response to your claim meant: "Wait a minute. Something's wrong here, and let's clear this up before continuing." I said you hadn't documented your claim, while you claimed you had, all several times in what became a circular discussion. I'm a skeptic and you have made a questionable claim. You must document it or drop it and any line of reasoning based on it. I'm still waiting for documentation for THAT claim. Not any claims about "expert", but about "medical expert". That's what you claimed. Please document it. I have already stated my opinion about his expert status, so let's not go in circles here. Don't force me to repeat myself. Please provide an example of him "representing himself as an medical expert." I'm not saying he hasn't done it, but that I'd like to see it, and in what manner it has been done. That is an important matter to clear up. Focus on those two words -- "medical expert". -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have timeWould you check out this about ChiBall Method? I looked at the link which to me is in violation of spam but I could be wrong. I think this editor is also doing redirects which I will be honest I still don't understand the use of these very well. I have taken time to try to understand this enough to 1) see if it's appropriate to add and 2) if it is, to write it better than it is now. Well I don't understand this well enough to make an intelligent decision at all about it so here I am aking you to take a look and do what is best for the project. I also noticed this along the way by clicking on the arrow in the contributions of the editor. I would appreciate if you have the time to look into these with your knowledge of alternates, thank you in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ps, it's going to take time getting used to this new user name of yours but I love what you did with your user page.
Green tea etc.Re this edit to WT:MEDRS: at its top, WT:MEDRS says "To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the Wikiproject talk pages of WT:MED or WT:PHARM". Eubulides ( talk) 05:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
39 months laterAnd we're still feeding this editor? Come on now. We know that he won't hesitate to make hundreds of more comments about this dead horse, repeating himself time and time again, ignoring entire policies in order to make Wikipedia a battleground for those who want to attack Barrett. Please don't feed such editors. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
3RR![]()
A couple of notes. Firstly, sorry if my playful editing at AN3 of the result to "1 week" confused you. That referred to the anon, not you. As to "obvious" vandalism, my advice would be to be cautious in the context of 3RR. The exception is intended to be very tightly drawn. Adding "Yo mama!" is obvious vandalism. Adding "Morgellons are caused by GMO's" is a content dispute. The general principle is that if a reasonable outsider with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever can't tell it is vandalism, then it isn't "obvious" William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
ChiropracticIs there anything about the Chiropractic article U C that I don't?- NootherIDAvailable ( talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for counselDear BullRangifer, I'm a new member on Wikipedia, and think I have run into a problem, well maybe not a real problem, but a new stituation I am not used to. Since you seem to share some of my viewpoints, from what I could see on your page, I decided I ask for counsel on a matter you seem to have experience in. I have stumbeled recently on some pages named " Science and the Bible", " Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts" and eventually " Qur'an and Science". As far as I can see all three articles suffer from problems. While "Science and the Bible" is honestly trying to maintain an objective outlook on Science in the Bible, the other two articles are increasingly fraught with what I consider pseudoscientific positions without accurately identifying them as such. The last article is the most problematic, because it has the neutral title "Qur'an and Science" without - in my opinion - covering the topic in a neutral fashion. I tried to improve on the last article, and have run in my first conflict on wikipedia. My - sourced - and in my opinion relevant and counterbalancing content was removed a few times by another editor, without giving much reason another editor, with hardly mentioning any reasons and not by any means satisfactory reasons (to me). I want to refrain from getting snarky and don't wan't to get into an edit war. This is *not* meant as a request for mediation, I just want to hear an independent opinion and some hints on that matter from a person that has experience with such problems. I hope to read from you soon. Best regards, Larkusix ( talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Another agenda?I hope you dont mind my post but you seem to have the right approach to NPOV! I am new to Wiki and dont know the 'moves' or have any support connections. Recently I started to improve an Alt Med Stub Leaky gut syndrome after advising my intention on the talk page some weeks before, with no response. It matters not to me whether it is Med or Alt Med if the science is there, and in this case it seems to be. Anyway I have run into an editor obviously experienced who seems determined to remove any new material on the page and keeps reverting and refuses to discuss on the talk page with asinine comments on the edit bar. I dont think i have transgressed, at least not to the extent indicated. Would you mind looking at the edits and advise me how i should proceed. Thanks Peerev ( talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
SkepticsYes Wikipedia needs more skeptics.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Note
ImpressionsA few thoughts.... A good first impression strongly influences the interpretation of what follows. A poor last impression leaves a lasting negative impression, and can easily erase a good first impression and everything positive about what happened between the first and last impressions. Goodwill can easily be destroyed by leaving a negative last impression. A customer who receives a good impression, and gets excellent service, can end up being a business's worst enemy, if the last impression was negative, and the customer then goes out and reports that impression. Likewise, a good movie can be ruined by a poor ending. In the end, the last impression may well be more important than the first impression. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks >> V. >>thank you for dotting my Vs. :) -- stmrlbs| talk 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: SkepticismVerbal is an activist debunker, and you might be too, so perhaps you should refrain from editing that portion of the article. Activist debunkers exist, and the term should be noted in Wikipedia, as it was for years. I'll note the talking pages and add it back. If you would like to improve that part of the article, then please do so. 24.209.226.121 ( talk) 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Alternative Medicine book authorsYour edits have been reverted as vandalism. Please note the correct title which you changed for some unknown reason. Please be more careful in the future, or you may be blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, I'm the co-editor of the book. If you check the Library of Congress listing, you'll see that the editors are Larry Trivieri, Jr., and John W. Anderson. Burton Goldberg was not an author or editor - he wrote the introduction. The cover you show is of the first printing, which had Burton's name on the cover (he was at the time the owner of the publishing company); that is no longer the case. Jwander1 ( talk) 05:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Please consider changing the listing for the book in Further Reading. Thanks. Jwander1 ( talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate it. Jwander1 ( talk) 01:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The link People by astrological sign lists at AstrologyHi, I added earlier today the link above to the astrology article. Since I operate the site that was linked I opened a discussion about it the wwek before at the discussion page. As you can see there, I wrote reasons to adding the links. No one wrote anything about it for some days. After that, I added the link and wrote that in the discussion page. I understand that you don't think that the link should be added. Let's discuss the reasons in the discussion page. By the way, what is the problem with the English. Thanks, WhatWasDone ( talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have timeThere is an editor editing the Reiki article. I know what he is doing is not policy and his pov is obvious by his user name. If you have time to look at this and handle it better than I, I would appreciate it. I am having troubles a bit with focusing and typing is hard for me a bit. On a different note, which if you would like you can take this part to email, I am going into surgery within the next few weeks for spinal surgery so I also will be on wikibreak soon for awhile. Thanks as always, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
SkepticismThanks for stomping on that little bushfire - I've been away. Unfortunatly I've found looking through my watchlist quite depressing. I don't know how you have the patients! (pun intended?) Cheers, Verbal chat 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Cyberstalking
You should nominate your talk page for semi-protection from IPs & un-established editors, click here for a shortcut or just say the word and I'll nominate it for you, Just a tip! I Seek To Help & Repair! ( talk) 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Detox and other sticky thingsHey, minor thing, just wanted to let you know I updated the source and restored some text at Acupuncture detoxification; I really don't see how the text is "advertising". All it says is that (a) Smith founded the method, and (b) that he says it should be used as a comp- instead of alt-med. FWIW, (b) sounds to me like the responsible position to take on a technique that patients enjoy, is at worst placebo (and apparently provides something they aren't getting elsewhere), and quite safe when done as directed. It's perplexing and discouraging to see all teh dramaz around your Wikiproject:User Rehab idea, which I think deserves a chance, although I'm too busy IRL to jump in. A silver lining: to the extent that this contentious stuff is a harbinger of where the wikiproject could go, maybe it's nature's way of saying: careful, this thing could be a tar baby; are you sure you want to mess with it? best regards, Middle 8 ( talk) 00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Personal attacksYou have a history of making personal attacks such as repeating claims that the POV of two very different editors you don't agree with is indistinguishable, even after one of them protested. Latest instance:
Per WP:NPA you are not supposed to make such personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.") unless you can prove them. In this case you knew that the accusation was false. This is very similar to what you did to me when you called me a meat puppet of a previous incarnation of NOIDA. [26] (February 2009) This is also similar to what you did to User:Unomi, who at that time was being harrassed by several editors under the lead of Orangemarlin [27] (who switched accounts shortly after I took him to task for this and another, unrelated incident, and while I was preparing a user RfC), when you publicly smeared him on ANI as having "slip[ped] through" the fishing checkuser case that had come out strongly negative. [28] [29] When I confronted you about this, you were as evasive as after your attack on me and continued to make similar unfounded disparaging claims about Unomi. [30] (March 2009) This unacceptable behaviour needs to stop. I advise you that two of the three instances fall under the homeopathy article probation and that I will report the next applicable instance to WP:AE. I will also ask User:Tim Vickers to comment here. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Déjà vu indeed. You attack someone, your target objects. You repeat your accusation without proof. And when taken to task you claim it's all a misunderstanding due to language problems. The proof that you knew your accusation against Whig was incorrect and offensive is in the timeline above. For your convenience the relevant passages from Talk:Homeopathy:
Then, just a week later, you smear Whig on User talk:NootherIDAvailable, a page which he is presumably not watching since he never commented there:
Then in this very section you repeat the unfounded accusation, just with a little qualification ("much of the time") added to be safe:
No acknowledgement that calling someone's opinions completely false and irresponsible and saying that blocking him was justified was not exactly the typical behaviour of an ally. No promise to be more careful in the future. Instead new attacks such as a parenthetical "who has been blocked before" (quite pathetic in the light of [32]), the strawman of "homeopathetic" [33] [34] (which happens to be on the same page but is not in the diffs I presented above), and a completely unprovoked, apparently preemptive introduction of the word "strawmen". If you want to see the world in black and white only that's sad but nobody else's business. When you attack random editors you don't agree with (first me, now Whig) by claiming their positions are essentially indistinguishable from those of a banned user, or even (in the absence of any evidence) that they support a banned user, it poisons the atmosphere and gets into the area of WP:NPA. Editors who are sympathetic with a fringe topic and try to keep its coverage accurate and the debunking within reasonable amounts are much more vulnerable to character assassination than pseudo-sceptic editors who try to maximise the debunking and have no interest in the topic otherwise. I have gone through the first seven items in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2#Evidence of disputed behavior and found that the descriptions are very misleading: the actual diffs are no worse than some of yours. If you doubt it I will provide them. It will save time in case a user conduct RfC on you becomes necessary. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 11:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
|
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bizarre diffThis diff is rather bizarre. It shows one editor editing another editor's userpage(!), and then adding portions of a quote that reveal a misunderstanding of NPOV. Odd...
That is quite a quote. Fyslee ( talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fyslee, sorry I don't mean to be engaging in whitewashing (is that a formal term? is there a guideline on this?) it just seemed that some of the language on the page was needlessly negative. I'd like to do some more work on the article, so I'll definitely be careful about this. Another question, what is "IOW duplication"? I'm not familiar with that policy, so if you could point me to a page about that I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Ten Thousand Bullets ( talk) 21:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Alston BLP vioDid you read the reference? It is an allegation by an non-notable individual in an opinion piece. It hardly justifies the inclusion of text calling Alston 'the world's biggest luddite'. Not even front page opinion pieces in WP:RS newspapers get a guernsey in AusPol articles, I don't see why this text should remain. -- Surturz ( talk) 01:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Reckless drivingThanks for the info about the reckless driving uproar; I wasn't aware of that part of chiro history. Eubulides ( talk) 08:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ApologyI misunderstood a comment of yours at User_talk:Shell_Kinney and posted a narky comment aimed at you. I reverted it a few minutes later when I realised my stupidity. Sorry for not assuming good faith. -- Surturz ( talk) 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Aspartame controversyI see you've been working on Aspartame controversy. I thought I'd take a stab at the article, but I don't think I have the patience to deal with problems of this extent. I'll stick with it for awhile and see what happens. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, your list is looking good. I am not real big on lists here but I think this might be helpful for locating information for references. There are lists for CAM so this is kind of balancing things out. Anyways, it is looking good. I also want to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season. Our editing hasn't crossed paths for quite some time so I hope all is well. Happy holidays, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings![]() The Risberg Cohort StudyIn 1992, Risberg and colleagues surveyed close to 1,000 Norwegian cancer patients about alternative treatments for cancer. Their initial purpose was to determine the prevalence and determinants of alternative medicine use.29 The investigators later realized that it would be possible to link their data to the Norwegian Statistical Registry to obtain information on survival. They found that alternative medicine use was associated with poorer survival; 79% of alternative medicine users died during follow-up compared with 65% of nonusers. This analysis was confounded by the poorer clinical status of users at the time of the survey. As might be expected, a patient with a treatable early cancer might be less likely to turn to an alternative cure than a patient with advanced disease and few remaining conventional treatment options. A multivariable Cox regression was used to control for baseline differences in stage, performance status, time since diagnosis, and other prognostic variables. There was a trend for alternative medicine users to have shorter survival (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% CI, 0.99–1.70; P = 0.056), a result that was robust to various sensitivity analyses. The authors hypothesized that shorter survival might be explained by "patients’ correct perception of the gravity of their disease." Whatever the explanation, the study certainly finds no evidence that use of alternative medicine improves survival.30 http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110 LameScience"Dirty Harry"Apologist flailing about: cheers, Jim Butler ( t) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.... section on malaria does not read: Malaria (meaning bad air) is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. It is widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, including parts of the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Each year, there are approximately 515 million cases of malaria... But rather: Malaria is a vector-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites. It is widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, including parts of the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Each year, there are approximately 515 million cases of malaria... Why provide rough translation of neologism coined in the late 20th century? Why insist on n00b's casual (and silly) addition being sacrosanct and then threatening to 'report'? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.101.202 ( talk) 09:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thought you'd want to know I've asked for a finding related to you to be amended. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Now located here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Motion Keating letterAn excellent letter by Keating starts here, about chiropractic philosophy and how it hampers the profession. -- Fyslee ( talk) 07:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Happy New Year! I noticed that you created this article. What to do you think should be done with it? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If you have time...Hi Fyslee, if you have time would you take a look at Reiki [2]? The vandals have hit it pretty hard lately and I don't know enough about this to fix the article. I am bringing it to your attention because I know you do ocassionally edit there. If you don't have time no problem, I am sure someone who knows the article can fix it back up. I am just not the right editor to do it. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee". For the Arbitration Committee,
HelloSorry for the revert, you were just in the line of fire! Duck! I know what you meant and you know what I mean. Dematt
Categorization, characterizationHi Fyslee -- regarding this edit -- no matter what introductory prose in subsections say, putting any topic in "List of Pseudosciences..." amounts to characterization per WP:PSCI. (Therefore, "questionable sciences" shouldn't go in.) This is true for any controversial category. "List of Terrorists" shouldn't contain a waffly section; it should either omit grey-area cases or have a different list title. That's pretty straightforward logic. Wasn't that why you argued for a change in the list's name to something more qualified, like "List of alleged pseudosciences" or something like that, so that "grey" area topics could be included along with brief explanations? regards, Backin72 ( n.b.) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCEA request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 ( n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Nice quote from that clarificationFrom the Statement by Eldereft ( diff)
Yes, I still think a change of title would significantly reduce the edit warring by dealing with the single most important fundamental defect with the article, the title. It needs to be changed to something neutral like List of purported pseudosciences, or something like that. Some relevant diffs: [3] [4] -- Fyslee ( talk) 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Parsing of WP:PSCII have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced and tweaked: There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what." They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe=alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the fringe=alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Wikipedia (by using the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:
The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:
I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe=alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Wikipedia categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles. Changing the title of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific or List of subjects asserted to be pseudoscientific, or better yet, List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS. -- Fyslee ( talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PingYou have mail of a personal nature from me. Take your time, thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC) PseudotitlesI offer my compliments on your clarity and consistency in the discussion of prospective titles for the list of pseudosciences and pseudo-pseudosciences, or whatever we'll end up calling it. (Hey, maybe I should propose that one, I kind of like it!) It's been good to have your quiet voice of sanity amidst the high-pitched tones. hgilbert ( talk) 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Aspartame controversyFyslee, thank you for this edit and in particular for the following edit here. IMO, a very sensible application of WP:RS and WP:PSTS. At absolute most the assertions you removed should have been made explicitly clear to be minority or fringe views. Good catch. ... Kenosis ( talk) 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Mucoid plaque![]() Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Delivered at 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable) InuitAn Inuk is the the singular but Inuit is the plural version. Although I did notice that in other languages, French Wikipedia for example. I suspect that it has to do with the fact that the words are not English to start with. In the two examples you gave, Caucasian and Asian, are probably English words so the adding of an s for the plural words. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Less heat and more light please. If we just focus on the sources, it will be easier to reach agreement. I suspect that this editor just didn't understand what I'd said, so could you refactor some of your speculations? Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Damn it, how did I manage to miss the edit where he changed a section heading from "Philosophy" to "Dogmatism"? -- TS 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
FluoridationThanks for spotting that stray "of". I removed it. The wording is still awkward, but at least it's grammatical now. Eubulides ( talk) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Anon user
Hi. An anon user asked for you to be warned for calling him a "sucker". You can take this as the warning. Deb ( talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) TruzziWorks for me - on further reflection, scientific skepticism is not really a good further information link there, good job. I did wikilink it in the section, though; the article is already linked in the preceding section, but I think overlinking is ok with that. And sorry about the thinko in typing links instead of redirects, that was my bad. - Eldereft ( cont.) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) My talk pagePlease refrain from posting on my talk page. If you have a problem please take it up with a third party administrator. Fothergill Volkensniff IV ( talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Sock puppet investigationWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Landed_little_marsdon I don't care too much about "civility", especially when it is targeted against myself, but this comment of yours is quite extraordinary. It starts with a valid argument, and I don't understand why you didn't stop after that. I don't see why you had to fill up your post with invalid arguments, cheap rhetorics and even a meatpuppetry accusation that insinuates that a professional mathematician in Europe acts as a proxy for an Indian quack. (To cover for the unlikely case that you actually believed what you wrote, I am sending you a relevant diff that I am not free to post here because it was partially oversighted.) I also appreciate the underhanded way in which your comment calls me insane, and I hereby return the compliment – to your comment, not yourself, who I suppose were simply a bit absent-minded when you wrote it. However, I agree with the last sentence of your comment ("This is simply disruptive, and it needs to stop."), with the obvious referent being the paragraph in which it appears. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Last informal warningThis is my last attempt to (in your words) "put out the fire". You have now repeated the worst of your unfounded insults:
This kind of well-poisoning is completely unacceptable, whether you do it knowingly or out of extreme negligence. You dig up an old compromise proposal of mine that you agree with sufficiently that you later propose it yourself for consideration. ("That wording of yours sounds pretty good to me, and it could be considered along with the suggestion below as good wordings." [11]). And you continue to accuse me of stonewalling in exactly the same matter? And don't claim that the passage of yours that I cited above was not intended to refer to me. I don't believe for a second that you just put it in in an attempt to "put out the fire". What I expect from you now is that you put up or shut up. You have made enough offensive insinuations: (1) that I am "carrying on the battle fought by" a certain user; (2) that my approach is not collaborative ("Please adopt a more collaborative attitude toward this issue, as you have done in the past."); (3) that I no longer stand by my compromise proposal ("I continue to appeal to you to reconsider one of your previous compromises"); (4) that I hold [a] fringe belief[s] such as e.g. belief in efficacy (in the usual sense that is testable with placebo-controlled studies) of homeopathy, or that my admitted belief in the existence of the placebo effect is a fringe belief ("You are welcome to hold fringe ideas as personal beliefs[...]"); (5) that I am advocating [a] fringe belief[s] ("but not allowed to advocate fringe beliefs at Wikipedia."). For each of them I expect substantiating diffs or an unambiguous retraction. In case you are still puzzled, look at this and this; this should help you to understand my real position. Normally you should be acquainted with it already, since you replied to my post in the second diff, and in the ensuing discussion it became clear that you are a strong believer in the minority position that the placebo effect is a mere illusion. I must warn you that your bullying and well-poisoning clearly falls under "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to [...] any expected standards of behavior [...]", and if you do not reply to my satisfaction I will ask an uninvolved admin for help. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
pleaseThis is a personal attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Puppetry.2C_Protection_.26_POV_tags Please apologize. You have no excuse. I asked you 2 specific questions (using reliable sources) and instead of trying to give a rational answer you are attacking me personally. This is disruptive; If you don’t apologize I will have to follow the right venue - AVI or whatever seems appropriate.-- JeanandJane ( talk) 02:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Andrew WakefieldI was able to find substantiation for at least part of a sentence that was awaiting citation at Andrew Wakefield but my medical knowledge is not enough to be sure whether the simple terms used in the Wakefield article match up with the medical terms used in the British Medical Journal. Could you check my change and see what you think? -- 65.78.13.238 ( talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Odd postDid you really intend to place this edit on that user's talkpage? LeadSongDog ( talk) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hans AdlerFyslee, I presume you don't think User:Hans Adler is User:Dr.Jhingaadey - Hans Alder is a long-standing editor who, although I often don't agree with him, behaves well, and is willing to discuss his points. I presume you were trying to say that some issues were raised by him and Jhingaadey, and you disagree with those issues, but I've reviewed your phrasing, and the phrasing is ambiguous enough that it could be read as an accusation. I think you should apologise to Hans, briefly and politely clarify your point, and this should bring the situation to rest. The Homeopathy article has calmed down into a very pleasant editing environment, I'd like to de-escalate this situation, and move on with the copy-edits that should take this to FA. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the following is helpful:
The statement of meatpuppetry really isn't helpful, nor is the extremely combative tone of the "murderers" part. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009From the editor —
A new leaf
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 06:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Your rollback requestHello Fyslee, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week. Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC) What the dealHello Fyslee, I saw you made a change to the format of Golden Plates. I reverted your change because it created unnecessary white space and made the format look worse. You then reverted by saying that it is "standard format" and that no more white space was created than other articles. Is there a required format for articles? If so, please direct me to that specific new rule/policy. If not, is there a new rule that put you in charge? Why would you revert when it is obvious another editor disagrees with your edit? I could your assistance in helping me understand your position or should we just revert each other? -- Storm Rider 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Fyslee, I came across this on FTN. I have a suggestion. Instead of leaving the last word to the last reverter, if you can stomach it, maybe set up a quick style preference !vote in RfC style on the talk page, and then leave it to the gods? I'm pretty sure a nonstandard version is going to get shot down by a majority of editors. I"m also pretty sure that this will come up again without a record of consensus since nonstandard layouts tend to get standardized by other editors (for good reason). Phil153 ( talk) 04:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
New article that requires a lot of loving. I did a lot of the much needed formatting, grammatical, and punctuational clean-up as well as some tagging. That said, it certainly could use some professional help. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC) -- MifterBot I ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. ( talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Are you kidding me???This change just cracked me up. In other words, even the homeopathic potion producers know there's nothing in solution? It cannot have any effect. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty disappointed in the fraud in the dietary supplement industry as well, although it's probably a bit too totalitarian to outright ban the things. Perhaps better disclosure labels. On the other hand, at least there's no adverse effects with homeopathic remedies-- and the placebo response likely helps people get better. Recent studies show that the effects of antidepressants, which can cause severe adverse effects, might be due to publication bias [13] and placebo [14]. Many depressed people would have improved with placebo, but instead had to take the risk of permanent sexual side-effects, weight gain, apathy, suicide ect. People's trust in the experts can lead to them being abused -- my coworker's 13-year old son had a tantrum and threw a pencil at a fellow student. The child psychologist immediately put him on risperidone, which among other alarming things (weight gain, anxiety, sexual dysfunction) could cause him to lactate. Luckily, herbs and natural substances with less side-effects and similar efficacy are beginning to be recognized. SAM-e and 5-HTP have been recognized as likely effective for depression for at least forty years -- and have little proven adverse effects -- yet because they can't be patented, they haven't been well-researched. Other examples include Harpagophytum, which appears to be equivalent to Vioxx with much fewer adverse effects, Veregen, the recently FDA-approved green tea extract for genital warts which is about as effective as Aldara without the serious adverse effects and a lower recurrence, and kava kava, which is effective for anxiety without strong evidence of negative effects in doses of the root-derived substance. II | ( t - c) 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
GenderI note on another talk page you're suddenly a "she" - when did the (un?)happy event occur? Or is that genderfusion on the part of the poster? (please note the innocently wagging tail of the puppy... no snickering here, nosir!) KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi I am 2 days old here and already in trouble :)
Sorry, I was just in the middle of an edit when you did your revert. I am trying to come to a consensus but the other editors do not seem familiar with the material (GAO87) and they seem to believe I am 'making it up'. Your help is greatly appreciated, but please see the discussion page and aid me in understanding just what the problem is, Thank you. Unomi ( talk) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Take CarePlease don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
SA & Tom ButlerDon't worry Fyslee. Tom's anti-science POV can't rely upon RS, NPOV, WEIGHT, or a host of other Wikipedia guidelines, so if Tom thinks that abusing SA, then pushing him out of the project, is going to allow the altmed types to write whatever they want, well, it ain't going to happen. I know SA's style is unhelpful at times, but he really stands up to these anti-science types. If they think they've "won", well, they really believe in magic. SA is one of the smarter editors around here. I don't care about SA's style one way or another (I'm close to it at times), because I don't think civility trumps NPOV under any condition. Don't waste your typing on Tom. He thinks he's right. Oh well. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ToneHey, what's with the unpleasant tone? "Vandalizing and whitewashing" is a little extreme considering all I did was to move information about the budget and charter from the criticism section to a section on general organizational information - where it's probably more appropriate, anyway. Nothing was deleted. hgilbert ( talk) 08:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hgilbert, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what went wrong, but I do apologize for that edit summary. Our previous history made me jump to a conclusion and I reacted too quickly and sharply. I am very sorry for that. (BTW Hans, this is about the last two of my edits, not the previous one.) But....looking at my first one, it inadvertently did create a duplicate. I just hadn't noticed that. My main concern was that material from a critical source was having part of the criticism moved to other sections, leaving it talking about the charter, but the charter part was now elsewhere, and also the detailed mention of certain trials was part of the criticism, but was now being moved elsewhere as well, all of it being sourced from the same ref. Whatever happened, I did make a mistake. BTW, there happens to be another duplication that was untouched. I'll remove it. If you still wish to fix that section, please propose your edits on the talk page and we can discuss them. I am perfectly willing to see improvemnts to the section, as long as the "teeth" and documentation of the criticism aren't "pulled". We can certainly work together on this one. I apparently didn't fully understand your original edits and misjudged your intent. My apologies again. -- Fyslee ( talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Thought you'd want to know I've asked for a finding related to you to be amended. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Now located here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Motion The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee". For the Arbitration Committee,
Parsing of WP:PSCII have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced and tweaked: There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what." They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe=alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the fringe=alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Wikipedia (by using the [[Category:Pseudoscience]] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:
The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:
I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe=alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Wikipedia categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles. Changing the title of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific or List of subjects asserted to be pseudoscientific, or better yet, List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS. -- Fyslee ( talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Mysterious huffings in Mindinao.Whoops, I belatedly noticed your request to respond here. Alas, I have only general ideas to offer. NickyMcLean ( talk) 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC) "could coverage"?See [19] -- 'good coverage' perhaps? Dougweller ( talk) 14:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacksAt WP:ANI#Martinphi requesting unblock there are three posts in which you attack Unomi based on an unfounded belief that he is a sockpuppet or returning user. As I noted elsewhere, with only a little research you can easily find out which country Unomi is editing from. You can also google his user name to find a lot of additional information about him, some of it related to his country of residence. The SPI case (apparently Unomi didn't know it was a RfCU since the term seems to be officially out of use since the merge of all SPIs to a single page) ends with "Checkuser evidence shows no IP-relationship nor any geographic relationship nor any other checkusery sort of evidence between the three candidates". I have rarely if ever seen such a strong formulation for a negative CU result. It led to the following unblock comment: "Checkuser evidence appears to indicate this sockpuppet ID was a mistake. Undoing my own block." I have analysed at Talk:Aspartame controversy#Unomi deserves an apology how several editors, most notably one who was blocked for edit warring two weeks ago and hasn't logged in after the block expired, have shown typical mobbing behaviour in response to very little provocation and the flimsiest evidence. I have had ZERO responses pointing out any inaccuracy in my analysis or even just disagreeing with it. The short version: Unomi tried to fix the misrepresentation of a source, didn't go about it with the care necessary at a controversial article, and got no constructive feedback. OM told him "Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CIVIL for good measure. Oh, and you're approaching tendentious editing." Unomi did follow at least the last of these links, and at WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors found a reference to an obscure old Arbcom case. OM replied: "Sniff. Sniff. Damn someone forgot to wash some socks out." From that point on, OM and some others shut down communication with Unomi almost completely, instead repeating the baseless sockpuppet accusations as a mantra. You should be more careful before attacking others in public. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL - Hans has been busy on talkpages lately :-) Shot info ( talk) 05:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Unkind wordsPlease remove your personal attack on me. Address the substance of my argument rather than attacking me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
For continued service
Huzzah for edits based entirely on appropriate sourcing! - Eldereft ( cont.) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Questions for UnomiUnomi, you have made a number of statements at the NPOV noticeboard that puzzle me. What are you talking about? Your heading there and the content that followed don't seem to hang together. You immediately turned it into an attack on me, QW, and Barrett. Here are some of the things you wrote that I'd like you to explain: 1. You wrote: "@Fyslee: I am going to ask you one last time to cease and desist with using strawman tactics and attributing statements or intents to me which you do not back up with diffs. I have never sought inclusion of Scientology sources." (BTW, your use of @ isn't standard indentation here and is rather irritating. Very few use it.)
2. You wrote: "The source which you seem to hold in such high regard was held in such low esteem by California Superior Court Judge Hon. Haley J. Fromholz that he saw fit to write..."
3. You wrote: "...but you must realize then that in-text attribution of the opinions must be..."
4. You wrote: "You consistently indicated your unwillingness to abide by wikipedia guidelines and policy..."
5. You wrote: "...if you continue to make unfounded and slanderous accusations we will very quickly see ourselves at yet another venue for dispute resolution."
In spite of (and maybe because of ;-) the fact that I am quite knowledgeable about the ideas of many forms of alternative medicine, most notably chiropractic, having made it a study for many decades, I am a very strongly pro-science, mainstream, editor who adheres to Wikipedia policies as best I can. I'm not perfect, but no one can question my loyalty to Wikipedia's policies and NPOV. I have made mistakes, especially in the beginning, but I have a positive learning curve. As examples of my support of NPOV you will find that I am one who supports and protects the inclusion of some of the worst fringe nonsense imaginable here. Why? Because if it is a notable fringe subject, then NPOV requires that it be presented here, and I support that. In the other direction, I support the inclusion of legitimate and well-sourced criticisms of mainstream subjects. I'm not a deletionist or whitewasher. Please explain your accusations and refer to each item by number. Do it below. -- Fyslee ( talk) 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Response to FysleeHi Fyslee and thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the issues that you have raised. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ReplyThank you so much for being upfront and explaining yourself. To some degree your efforts above do shed some light on your comments. I wasn't expecting things outside the noticeboard to be part of the issue, since my comment stood alone there, and I thought you were overreacting to it. Anyway, there is much confusion and I'm sorry about needlessly hurting your feelings. I'm quite blunt in my expressions at times, and that can hurt. That is not my intention. I'm not really thinking about the reception while I'm writing criticisms. Maybe I should! Rather than answer each and every point, I do notice a few themes that may need clarifying. My comments may not be totally satisfactory, but at least they'll explain where I'm coming from.
I doubt that you'll be happy with all I've written, but those are my honest opinions. Even though we disagree, I hope that we can learn to disagree agreeably. -- Fyslee ( talk) 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a bad feeling about a sockpuppetHi. I think I need some help. I recently opened a discussion on WP:ANI regarding some very vitriolic responses to a fairly straightforward AfD discussion [20]. During the process, I was able to read about 1000 words worth of direct conversational speech by the admin who was attacking me User:Uncle G, as well as his policy arguments. Out of nowhere, a new user jumped in with the pared down version of the exact argument the admin (Uncle G) had used with me on the AfD discussion, even though he hadn't voted on it. Upon viewing User:Unomi, I came across your discussions with him. I don't know if I'm being paranoid or not, but several phrases, including the same weird "staw man" analogy were used by both. The sentence construction is almost identical. As is an almost uncanny resemblance in their attitude and word choice. I could give you more examples, but you did a lot of work on this, and are probably more qualified to let me know if I should pursue this or not. I hate causing conflict like this, but I have a really bad feeling in the pit of my stomach about this.-- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 18:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Because you're not looking for itThis: "The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community." .... is all that is required in the flood geology article. No preaching. No bad quotes. No misinformation. Science is merely a method of understanding the universe as it is, it doesn't require protection by forcefully taking down its enemies. -- KP Botany ( talk) 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
RenameI've renamed you but be advised you have so many edits that it will take a few days to process them all, most likely. If there are any problems in this regard, you'll need to contact a developer. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You've Got PostI sent you an email. Regards, Skinwalker ( talk) 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Dispute resolution: Barrett's status as "medical expert"![]()
This is about a dispute regarding what I consider to be a likely dubious claim made by Stmrlbs
Stmrlbs makes the claim as part of his argumentation for why an unsourced (or at least improperly sourced) piece of information about Barrett's lack of board certification should be included in the Barrett article. THAT is not the subject of discussion here. It is Stmrlbs's claim about Barrett claiming to be a "medical expert" that I question. I'm bringing the discussion here since the dispute quickly became a distraction and circular discussion, and thus a violation of WP:TALK. I put a hat on it, which is standard practice in such situations, something that Stmrlbs apparently doesn't realize and has reverted twice, rather than accepting what more experienced editors do in such situations. Anyone can do it, including uninvolved editors. There is no firm rule about it. If there was hope for the matter being resolved without disruption on that talk page, it would be OK to remove the hat, but that isn't the case. In response to the following comment, I'm going to seek to get to the bottom of this matter:
Stmrlbs, our comments are still there. A "hat" doesnt't remove them. It just helps to ensure that our personal dispute doesn't continue to disrupt the discussion. It veered off-topic, and would have been more appropriate as a separate thread, but since it became more personal and very circular, it doesn't belong on that page. Other editors might have removed the whole thing as a TALK violation, but I didn't do that. I'm not sure why we're having the impasse in our communication, but maybe your first language isn't English? Well, here goes... you ask me to tell you what I "think this situation is". Fair enough. The situation is that you made a possibly dubious claim as part of your argumentation. That claim may be fallacious. If you were to build your argumentation on a fallacious idea, then the conclusions that followed it would be fallacious as well, and we'd end up not really solving the matter about whether or not to include the board certification matter. That's why my response to your claim meant: "Wait a minute. Something's wrong here, and let's clear this up before continuing." I said you hadn't documented your claim, while you claimed you had, all several times in what became a circular discussion. I'm a skeptic and you have made a questionable claim. You must document it or drop it and any line of reasoning based on it. I'm still waiting for documentation for THAT claim. Not any claims about "expert", but about "medical expert". That's what you claimed. Please document it. I have already stated my opinion about his expert status, so let's not go in circles here. Don't force me to repeat myself. Please provide an example of him "representing himself as an medical expert." I'm not saying he hasn't done it, but that I'd like to see it, and in what manner it has been done. That is an important matter to clear up. Focus on those two words -- "medical expert". -- BullRangifer ( talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have timeWould you check out this about ChiBall Method? I looked at the link which to me is in violation of spam but I could be wrong. I think this editor is also doing redirects which I will be honest I still don't understand the use of these very well. I have taken time to try to understand this enough to 1) see if it's appropriate to add and 2) if it is, to write it better than it is now. Well I don't understand this well enough to make an intelligent decision at all about it so here I am aking you to take a look and do what is best for the project. I also noticed this along the way by clicking on the arrow in the contributions of the editor. I would appreciate if you have the time to look into these with your knowledge of alternates, thank you in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ps, it's going to take time getting used to this new user name of yours but I love what you did with your user page.
Green tea etc.Re this edit to WT:MEDRS: at its top, WT:MEDRS says "To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the Wikiproject talk pages of WT:MED or WT:PHARM". Eubulides ( talk) 05:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
39 months laterAnd we're still feeding this editor? Come on now. We know that he won't hesitate to make hundreds of more comments about this dead horse, repeating himself time and time again, ignoring entire policies in order to make Wikipedia a battleground for those who want to attack Barrett. Please don't feed such editors. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
3RR![]()
A couple of notes. Firstly, sorry if my playful editing at AN3 of the result to "1 week" confused you. That referred to the anon, not you. As to "obvious" vandalism, my advice would be to be cautious in the context of 3RR. The exception is intended to be very tightly drawn. Adding "Yo mama!" is obvious vandalism. Adding "Morgellons are caused by GMO's" is a content dispute. The general principle is that if a reasonable outsider with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever can't tell it is vandalism, then it isn't "obvious" William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
ChiropracticIs there anything about the Chiropractic article U C that I don't?- NootherIDAvailable ( talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for counselDear BullRangifer, I'm a new member on Wikipedia, and think I have run into a problem, well maybe not a real problem, but a new stituation I am not used to. Since you seem to share some of my viewpoints, from what I could see on your page, I decided I ask for counsel on a matter you seem to have experience in. I have stumbeled recently on some pages named " Science and the Bible", " Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts" and eventually " Qur'an and Science". As far as I can see all three articles suffer from problems. While "Science and the Bible" is honestly trying to maintain an objective outlook on Science in the Bible, the other two articles are increasingly fraught with what I consider pseudoscientific positions without accurately identifying them as such. The last article is the most problematic, because it has the neutral title "Qur'an and Science" without - in my opinion - covering the topic in a neutral fashion. I tried to improve on the last article, and have run in my first conflict on wikipedia. My - sourced - and in my opinion relevant and counterbalancing content was removed a few times by another editor, without giving much reason another editor, with hardly mentioning any reasons and not by any means satisfactory reasons (to me). I want to refrain from getting snarky and don't wan't to get into an edit war. This is *not* meant as a request for mediation, I just want to hear an independent opinion and some hints on that matter from a person that has experience with such problems. I hope to read from you soon. Best regards, Larkusix ( talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Another agenda?I hope you dont mind my post but you seem to have the right approach to NPOV! I am new to Wiki and dont know the 'moves' or have any support connections. Recently I started to improve an Alt Med Stub Leaky gut syndrome after advising my intention on the talk page some weeks before, with no response. It matters not to me whether it is Med or Alt Med if the science is there, and in this case it seems to be. Anyway I have run into an editor obviously experienced who seems determined to remove any new material on the page and keeps reverting and refuses to discuss on the talk page with asinine comments on the edit bar. I dont think i have transgressed, at least not to the extent indicated. Would you mind looking at the edits and advise me how i should proceed. Thanks Peerev ( talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
SkepticsYes Wikipedia needs more skeptics.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Note
ImpressionsA few thoughts.... A good first impression strongly influences the interpretation of what follows. A poor last impression leaves a lasting negative impression, and can easily erase a good first impression and everything positive about what happened between the first and last impressions. Goodwill can easily be destroyed by leaving a negative last impression. A customer who receives a good impression, and gets excellent service, can end up being a business's worst enemy, if the last impression was negative, and the customer then goes out and reports that impression. Likewise, a good movie can be ruined by a poor ending. In the end, the last impression may well be more important than the first impression. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks >> V. >>thank you for dotting my Vs. :) -- stmrlbs| talk 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: SkepticismVerbal is an activist debunker, and you might be too, so perhaps you should refrain from editing that portion of the article. Activist debunkers exist, and the term should be noted in Wikipedia, as it was for years. I'll note the talking pages and add it back. If you would like to improve that part of the article, then please do so. 24.209.226.121 ( talk) 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Alternative Medicine book authorsYour edits have been reverted as vandalism. Please note the correct title which you changed for some unknown reason. Please be more careful in the future, or you may be blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, I'm the co-editor of the book. If you check the Library of Congress listing, you'll see that the editors are Larry Trivieri, Jr., and John W. Anderson. Burton Goldberg was not an author or editor - he wrote the introduction. The cover you show is of the first printing, which had Burton's name on the cover (he was at the time the owner of the publishing company); that is no longer the case. Jwander1 ( talk) 05:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Please consider changing the listing for the book in Further Reading. Thanks. Jwander1 ( talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate it. Jwander1 ( talk) 01:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The link People by astrological sign lists at AstrologyHi, I added earlier today the link above to the astrology article. Since I operate the site that was linked I opened a discussion about it the wwek before at the discussion page. As you can see there, I wrote reasons to adding the links. No one wrote anything about it for some days. After that, I added the link and wrote that in the discussion page. I understand that you don't think that the link should be added. Let's discuss the reasons in the discussion page. By the way, what is the problem with the English. Thanks, WhatWasDone ( talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have timeThere is an editor editing the Reiki article. I know what he is doing is not policy and his pov is obvious by his user name. If you have time to look at this and handle it better than I, I would appreciate it. I am having troubles a bit with focusing and typing is hard for me a bit. On a different note, which if you would like you can take this part to email, I am going into surgery within the next few weeks for spinal surgery so I also will be on wikibreak soon for awhile. Thanks as always, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
SkepticismThanks for stomping on that little bushfire - I've been away. Unfortunatly I've found looking through my watchlist quite depressing. I don't know how you have the patients! (pun intended?) Cheers, Verbal chat 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Cyberstalking
You should nominate your talk page for semi-protection from IPs & un-established editors, click here for a shortcut or just say the word and I'll nominate it for you, Just a tip! I Seek To Help & Repair! ( talk) 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Detox and other sticky thingsHey, minor thing, just wanted to let you know I updated the source and restored some text at Acupuncture detoxification; I really don't see how the text is "advertising". All it says is that (a) Smith founded the method, and (b) that he says it should be used as a comp- instead of alt-med. FWIW, (b) sounds to me like the responsible position to take on a technique that patients enjoy, is at worst placebo (and apparently provides something they aren't getting elsewhere), and quite safe when done as directed. It's perplexing and discouraging to see all teh dramaz around your Wikiproject:User Rehab idea, which I think deserves a chance, although I'm too busy IRL to jump in. A silver lining: to the extent that this contentious stuff is a harbinger of where the wikiproject could go, maybe it's nature's way of saying: careful, this thing could be a tar baby; are you sure you want to mess with it? best regards, Middle 8 ( talk) 00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Personal attacksYou have a history of making personal attacks such as repeating claims that the POV of two very different editors you don't agree with is indistinguishable, even after one of them protested. Latest instance:
Per WP:NPA you are not supposed to make such personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.") unless you can prove them. In this case you knew that the accusation was false. This is very similar to what you did to me when you called me a meat puppet of a previous incarnation of NOIDA. [26] (February 2009) This is also similar to what you did to User:Unomi, who at that time was being harrassed by several editors under the lead of Orangemarlin [27] (who switched accounts shortly after I took him to task for this and another, unrelated incident, and while I was preparing a user RfC), when you publicly smeared him on ANI as having "slip[ped] through" the fishing checkuser case that had come out strongly negative. [28] [29] When I confronted you about this, you were as evasive as after your attack on me and continued to make similar unfounded disparaging claims about Unomi. [30] (March 2009) This unacceptable behaviour needs to stop. I advise you that two of the three instances fall under the homeopathy article probation and that I will report the next applicable instance to WP:AE. I will also ask User:Tim Vickers to comment here. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Déjà vu indeed. You attack someone, your target objects. You repeat your accusation without proof. And when taken to task you claim it's all a misunderstanding due to language problems. The proof that you knew your accusation against Whig was incorrect and offensive is in the timeline above. For your convenience the relevant passages from Talk:Homeopathy:
Then, just a week later, you smear Whig on User talk:NootherIDAvailable, a page which he is presumably not watching since he never commented there:
Then in this very section you repeat the unfounded accusation, just with a little qualification ("much of the time") added to be safe:
No acknowledgement that calling someone's opinions completely false and irresponsible and saying that blocking him was justified was not exactly the typical behaviour of an ally. No promise to be more careful in the future. Instead new attacks such as a parenthetical "who has been blocked before" (quite pathetic in the light of [32]), the strawman of "homeopathetic" [33] [34] (which happens to be on the same page but is not in the diffs I presented above), and a completely unprovoked, apparently preemptive introduction of the word "strawmen". If you want to see the world in black and white only that's sad but nobody else's business. When you attack random editors you don't agree with (first me, now Whig) by claiming their positions are essentially indistinguishable from those of a banned user, or even (in the absence of any evidence) that they support a banned user, it poisons the atmosphere and gets into the area of WP:NPA. Editors who are sympathetic with a fringe topic and try to keep its coverage accurate and the debunking within reasonable amounts are much more vulnerable to character assassination than pseudo-sceptic editors who try to maximise the debunking and have no interest in the topic otherwise. I have gone through the first seven items in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2#Evidence of disputed behavior and found that the descriptions are very misleading: the actual diffs are no worse than some of yours. If you doubt it I will provide them. It will save time in case a user conduct RfC on you becomes necessary. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 11:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
|